M
mshealy
Guest
I know there are a few good web sites, but does anyone have some good book recommendations for refuting Mormon doctrines?
- Status
G
GIMJ
Guest
The Book of Mormon and the Bible are two great books for refuting Mormon doctrines. The Book of Mormon, particularly, since it’s held in higher esteem in LDS circles and still contradicts the orthodox Mormon position.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Dont forget Catholic Answers very own Apologetics files:
catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Enjoy. Also, there are many well informed Ex-Mormons around here who can help you with any specific questions, just ask!
catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Enjoy. Also, there are many well informed Ex-Mormons around here who can help you with any specific questions, just ask!
B
BartBurk
Guest
I wouldn’t bother with trying to refute Mormon doctrines. But if you had to have a book, I suggest “Mormons: Answered Verse by Verse” by John Farkas and David Reed (amazon.com/Mormons-Answered-Verse-David-Reed/dp/0801077613. The only problem is that it comes from an evangelical prospective.
I would be more inclined to try to attack the historicity of the Mormon Church and the Book of Mormon. Grant Palmer’s “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” (amazon.com/Insiders-View-Mormon-Origins/dp/1560851570/ref=sr_1_1/105-3199689-8079601?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182942861&sr=1-1) gathers together research in Mormon history over the past 50 years which clearly show problems with the Mormon story. Another book I would suggest is Simon Southerton’s “Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church” (amazon.com/Losing-Lost-Tribe-Native-Americans/dp/1560851813/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3199689-8079601?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182942896&sr=1-1) which gives important evidence that Native Americans could not have descended from Israelites as claimed by the Book of Mormon. A good book about Mormon polygamy is Richard Van Wagoner’s “Mormon Polygamy: a History” (amazon.com/Mormon-Polygamy-Richard-Van-Wagoner/dp/0941214796) which in my mind is the best book about Mormon polygamy written so far.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Following up Southerton’s book, I would also suggest my contribution, which turns the BOM “right side out”.
solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm
solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm
A
anon
Guest
Here is a link I found about difficult questions Mormons have answering:
carm.org/lds/diff_questions.htm
I might add one more question to the list: If it is over 100 degrees outside, why do Mormon missionaries continue to walk around from house to house in long pants, shirts, and ties?
Is it against Mormon teaching to wear shorts?
carm.org/lds/diff_questions.htm
I might add one more question to the list: If it is over 100 degrees outside, why do Mormon missionaries continue to walk around from house to house in long pants, shirts, and ties?
Is it against Mormon teaching to wear shorts?
J
Jerusha
Guest
If they dress like penguins, they think they have fewer problems with the young female converts having crushes on them. 
R
RCCDefender
Guest
Looking like penguins hasn’t worked for preventing young Catholic girls from having crushes on good looking priests
P
PaulDupre
Guest
You’ll rarely see “temple-worthy” Mormons in shorts. That is because the Mormon temple garments reach to the knees and it is forbidden to wear anything that allows the temple garments to show. The only shorts these Mormons will wear are “board shorts” which extend to or past the knees. For the same reason, you will never see a 'temple worthy" Mormon woman wearing a sleevless blouse. The temple garments have shoulder caps which would stick out.Here is a link I found about difficult questions Mormons have answering:
carm.org/lds/diff_questions.htm
I might add one more question to the list: If it is over 100 degrees outside, why do Mormon missionaries continue to walk around from house to house in long pants, shirts, and ties?
Mormon missionaries wear their garments all the time, so they cannot wear shorts. They are also expected to stick to the missionary dress code (white shirt, dark slacks and necktie) at all times, except when on their “P-day”, when they can dispense with the white shirt and tie, but must still be neat and clean and wear clothing that hides the temple garments.
I served my mission in Taiwan, where it gets incredibly hot and humid. Wearing the missionary attire, with the temple garments underneath, was frequently close to unbearable. But it did not discourage the young ladies at all. On the contrary, most young women seemed to like the clean-cut image very much.
Paul (a former Mormon missionary)
P
PaulDupre
Guest
From my quick look at your re-interpretation of the BofM, can I conclude that you do not believe the BofM to be a 19th century invention, but believe it to be an actual ancient document translated from the gold plates?
Paul
B
BartBurk
Guest
That doesn’t seem to me to be what she is saying at all. I think she is saying there were real Native American legends existing in Joseph Smith’s 19th century New York that were reworked by authors in the 19th century to create the Book of Mormon. Since these legends may have had some amount of truth in them, the Book of Mormon might actually reflect some of what really happened with religious add-ons.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Oh, I see. But I wouldn’t conclude that the BofM story had some “truth” in it, but rather that it merely reflected the folk culture and beliefs of the early 19th century regarding Native American origins. The religious add-ins, in the same way, reflected many of the emerging Protestant views of the time, especially the restorationist movements such as the Campbellites, from whence came Sidney Rigdon. I personally think the best evidence shows that Sidney Rigdon wrote the parts of the Book of Mormon containing the religious sermons and that the “story” part was mostly lifted from the Solomon Spaulding manuscript taken from the printing office by Rigdon.
God bless you,
Paul
God bless you,
Paul
S
strngrnrth
Guest
What is the purpose of the temple garments? Just curious.
A
Allweather
Guest
There is an article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which I coincidentally read just yesterday.
It says that the original manuscript of Spaulding’s story, called Manuscript Found, was lost between 1839 and 1884, when it turned up in Honolulu. The article seems to think it is significant that the BoM and the Spaulding “book” don’t share any names, and that the writing styles are “different.” It doesn’t say anything about why this would mean Rigdon and Smith didn’t plagarize the basic storyline, which is eerily similar.
It also states that Rigdon didn’t meet Smith until December of 1830, by which time the BoM had already been published. Is it possible the two men met earlier than this? If they didn’t, how could they have worked together on the BoM?
It says that the original manuscript of Spaulding’s story, called Manuscript Found, was lost between 1839 and 1884, when it turned up in Honolulu. The article seems to think it is significant that the BoM and the Spaulding “book” don’t share any names, and that the writing styles are “different.” It doesn’t say anything about why this would mean Rigdon and Smith didn’t plagarize the basic storyline, which is eerily similar.
It also states that Rigdon didn’t meet Smith until December of 1830, by which time the BoM had already been published. Is it possible the two men met earlier than this? If they didn’t, how could they have worked together on the BoM?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The temple garments are official called “the garment of the holy priesthood”. According to the temple endowment, it represents the clothing that God made from animal skins for Adam and Eve after the fall. The endowment script also declares that the garment serves as a protection to the wearer.
Paul
A
A_Pac
Guest
Wow. Glad we have a resident ignoramus. I for one am most definitely “temple-worthy” and wear shorts at every opportunity. You can redefine words all you’d like, but I certainly wear shorts.
Again, I don’t know where you get your info, but let me in no uncertain terms tell you, you’re incorrect. Covering up is the important thing, and many shorts do just that.
你还是LDS吗?
A Pac
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I dont know the details on these undergarments (I have heard people call it “underwear”, but I dont believe that and consider that term rude and mis- representative) , but are you saying you wear them regularly? If yes, do you have them showing?
I cant see someone wearing shorts who is trying to cover up their undergarments.
B
BartBurk
Guest
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says about this. This has been covered up for years. There were obviously two manuscripts, one which had Book of Mormon names in it and which was destroyed after the creation of the Book of Mormon. The remaining manuscript is not the one used by Joseph Smith. You might be interested in reading this:
mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#1
There is a very good chance Smith and Rigdon and Cowdrey knew each other before 1829. Cowdrey could easily have brought it all together.
A
Allweather
Guest
Thanks, Bart, I will read the article tomorrow… no time today.
A
A_Pac
Guest
Trust me…it’s not as hard as it sounds.
But as far as the Spaulding manuscript, I should give you the 411: You’ll get laughed at in academic circles if you really believe that’s where the BoM came from. Textual analysis have not been beneficial to your argument, and you seem to forget that Joseph’s experiences started long before he had ever met Cowdery or Rigdon. His experiences as a boy have many witnesses (that he spoke about it then rather than fabricating it later). Moreover, the glaring hole is the fact that both Cowdery and Rigdon left the church but never denied their testimonies of the truth. For those disenfranchised with Mormonism and even having came out harshly against Joseph, they never pointed any illuminating finger at the actual work as being false.
Yes…keep tauting Spaulding…it makes my apologist position some much easier.
A Pac
- Status